´óÏó´«Ã½

that's a awful idea, swimming to kids and over 60's are effecting people who need it most. my uncle has got cancer and goes swimming 4 of 7 days a week, it's about the only exercise he gets and it helps him good in shape. i've no idea whether or not he'll continue to pay but it just goes to complicate his way of life, he worked for over 20 years as a deputy head and teacher, with news of the cancer, he's just trying to do what he can

One thing not mentioned is that this was going to end in March next year anyway so if it saves £5million in the short term then fine

This move does seem rather petty given the sums involved: if it's a symbolic gesture, it's an extremely mean-spirited one. If it's just the tip of the iceburg then we can only be thankful that the NHS budget is ringfenced, as obesity ravages the nation's health unchecked.

It could be argued that money spent on elite sport is a luxury, though one could also make the counter-argument that sporting success is good for the nation's sense of well-being, which is good for the economy, and that inspiring elite performances increase participation.

Even then, there's no excuse or logical reason to cut funding for grass-roots sport. The benefit of sport to the physical and mental health of the nation is simply immeasurable. Well, at the moment it's immeasurable. We will be able to measure it very soon...

What exactly is covered by the free swimming programme?

I wouldn't mind subsidising structured activity such as children's swimming lessons or club swimming; however if we're talking about children just playing about in a pool, slight value though it may have, I wouldn't be too sad to see it go.

I've never met anyone who has benefited from this scheme. Who was it available to, and where? I take my daughter swimming weekly and I would say the pool is at least half full of immigrants e.g. Poles, Germans, various others. It suggests to me that a swim is higher up their priority list than it is for the average Briton. Maybe if we built our swimming pools next to shopping centres we could get some spin off from our real national sport - shopping.

Matt - I also have to say that was an unecessary cheap shot at Wenger in your article. You use him to introduce an article on swimming and then drop your journalistic standards to ignorant football pub talk.

#4 - the content of free swimming has been part of the problem, particularly U16s. It's turned into a bit of a free for all, with little structured activity and no joined up pathways, to get kids engaged, and with sustained participation, members of clubs etc.

#2 - you're right that this only ever had a limited run, but the implementation of the scheme - retimetabling of pools, distribution of membership cards, collection of details from participants etc - has been far from straightforward, so it seems like an awful lot of effort for not a lot of gain if the plug is pulled now.

Having worked in the public sector for over a decade, I can honestly say that it won't be hard to cut many millions simply by tackling wastage, greed and laziness. One of my previous employers, when moving offices, removed the 20 odd 42 in LCD screens, and rather than transport them half a mile up the road DISPOSED OF THEM and then BOUGHT NEW ONES.

Let alone the cost of computers and monitors thrown away.

As far as the free swimming, well if the information is correct that the people who took it up would have happily paid for it otherwise, then it was a waste of £5m.

As usual, the difference is between one approach to create a nanny state (which has run the country into incredible debt, and the hard workers have to pay for the lazy) vs an approach to create a "get off your couch and do it yourself" state where the lazy doll-claiming people suffer.

Nice blog! Keep up the good work!

ooozzzelll got burned!

It's only a small saving, but the same rules apply as always. With a limited pot of money, would you rather have free swimming for people who can pay for it anyway, or would you rather have home care for elderly and disabled people?

Matt - in your post No.7 you have accused me of "making sweeping statements about immigrants" in my post No.5. I don't think you have read my comment properly. I may have made a sweeping statement about the British, but I have simply made an observation about immigrants, and one that is complimentary to them.

I'm upset by that, and whilst I may dress up my comments as light hearted I think you might find there is more depth to them than you first realise.

Thanks for the reply Matt. I think we're agreed that it may be of slight benefit to the kids to get through the door, even without structured activities. However I do feel this may not be worth it, and also that it may have an extra negative effect. It can be very off-putting to those who are there to swim properly to have a pool over-run by kids playing about. Has this effect been charted?

ooozzzelll, wind your neck in.

As a reasonably regular visitor to the UK and a keen recreational swimmer for health and fitness, I have found leisure centre pools in most towns.

They are cheap and OK. In Cardiff I have "Stretch" card for over 60's which allows for free swims and in other towns a few pounds will allow entry.

I have enjoyed pools in Brecon, Congleton, Ross on Wye, Ilford, Swansea and Crawley.

Clearly Arsene is not a waterman...as the old saying goes "you can lead a frog to water but you can't make them swim..."

I understand we need to save money but aren't we always being told that our children are not healthy and active enough, then they cancel a scheme that gets children out from infront of the TV and into the swimming pool!. It works too, my daughter swims for a club so I spend a lot of time at the pool(we pay for this so free swimming makes no difference to us), the number of young swimmers in the pool increased once free swimming was available. I just think to cancel it from 31 July when the summer holidays are just starting was a bit mean 31 August would have been better.

It is a crying shame that children in particular are being denied this wonderful activity, because we can be certain that many kids who would have continued to swim under this scheme will now be unable to afford to.

Any savings may well be lost by future treatment for obesity and related illnesses in a young generation which all experts agree should be encouraged, not discouraged, to take more exercise.

Matt, I normally find your blogs well written and an enjoyable read unlike some of the other so called 'sports' bloggers; but I too find your jibe at Arsene a 'cheap shot'.

What has a decent man & good football manager got to do with the state of swimming pools or lack thereof? Surely a writer of your calibre could come up with something a little less predictable and petty??

Now to the matter in hand, I think they might as well have kept the free swimming as in the grand scheme of things £5 million won't really make that much difference and would make a great difference to alot of parents over the summer holidays.

That wasn't a cheap shot at Arsene Wenger, it was richly deserved. His selective myopia has long been a joke. How many times have we heard him say 'I didn't see the incident' - often when you can see him looking in the right direction in action replays? He's even admitted that he'll always back his players no matter what!

Yet when the slighteset thing happens to one of his players his vision suddenly has laser-like accuracy from 50 yards away through a crowd of players, don't make me laugh, gooners!

Matt,

Just as an aside to this free swim offer - local swimming pools jumped at the chance for govt cash, the down side was in some areas a reduction in pool time for many local swimming clubs (and the future olympians).

If the govt wanted to promote genuine use of swimming pools by children this is the area they should've supported (incl lessons & water polo). Pensioners also deserve some consideration.

But NOT those who come for a free splash around.